Table 5.

Summary statistics for the subgroup sensitivity cost-effectiveness bootstrap analyses based on the binge drinking occasions outcome measure.

Perspective aand condition				Costs (€) b	Effect c	ICER d	NE	NW (inferior)	SW	SE (dominant)
Gender subgroups
	Male
		Health care
			Control (n=162)	193.96	–0.57
			Intervention (n=147)	164.53	0.08	Dominant	44%	1%	1%	54%
		Societal
			Control (n=162)	337.21	–0.57
			Intervention (n=147)	352.43	0.08	46	57%	1%	1%	42%
	Female
		Health care
			Control (n=141)	46.46	–0.04
			Intervention (n=240)	123.48	0.21	179	81%	19%	0%	0%
		Societal
			Control (n=141)	177.04	–0.04
			Intervention (n=240)	327.09	0.21	291	78%	19%	0%	2%
Age subgroups
	Younger adolescents (15-16 years)
		Health care
			Control (n=200)	50.05	–0.26
			Intervention (n=281)	145.79	0.13	276	71%	29%	0%	0%
		Societal
			Control (n=200)	177.07	–0.26
			Intervention (n=281)	334.90	0.13	343	68%	29%	1%	2%
	Older adolescents (≥17 years)
		Health care
			Control (n=103)	271.48	–0.45
			Intervention (n=106)	121.27	0.94	Dominant	31%	0%	0%	68%
		Societal
			Control (n=103)	428.90	–0.45
			Intervention (n=106)	341.53	0.94	Dominant	39%	0%	0%	60%
Educational level subgroups
	Low
		Health care
			Control (n=98)	263.02	–0.53
			Intervention (n=91)	117.35	1.04	Dominant	35%	0%	0%	64%
		Societal
			Control (n=98)	435.78	–0.53
			Intervention (n=91)	282.38	1.04	Dominant	30%	0%	0%	70%
	High
		Health care
			Control (n=205)	59.50	–0.23
			Intervention (n=296)	145.76	–0.10	231	69%	30%	0%	1%
		Societal
			Control (n=205)	179.93	–0.23
			Intervention (n=296)	353.42	–0.10	435	69%	29%	0%	1%
Religion subgroups
	Religion
		Health care
			Control (n=97)	46.91	–0.34
			Intervention (n=181)	148.11	0.32	148	96%	4%	0%	0%
		Societal
			Control (n=97)	155.80	–0.34
			Intervention (n=181)	336.35	0.32	256	95%	4%	0%	1%
	No religion
		Health care
			Control (n=206)	162.24		–0.32
			Intervention (n=206)	131.13	0.02	Dominant	43%	7%	6%	45%
		Societal
			Control (n=206)	313.00	–0.32
			Intervention (n=206)	337.04	0.02	47	50%	8%	4%	37%
Ethnicity subgroups
	Dutch
		Health care
			Control (n=278)	128.83	–0.36
			Intervention (n=356)	136.90	0.18	71	59%	3%	2%	37%
		Societal
			Control (n=278)	262.96	–0.36
			Intervention (n=356)	334.67	0.18	139	69%	4%	1%	26%
	Other
		Health care
			Control (n=25)	86.35	0.00
			Intervention (n=31)	164.09	0.03	Inferior	36%	48%	3%	13%
		Societal
			Control (n=25)	259.53	0.00
			Intervention (n=31)	360.20	0.03	Inferior	24%	48%	4%	24%

^aBootstrap analyses were conducted from two perspectives: the health care perspective and the societal perspective.

^bCosts per adolescent at 2014 prices.

^cReduction in per week alcohol use between T0 and T1, with negative values indicating an increase at T1 compared to T0.

^dThe presented ICER is the 50 ^thpercentile of 5000 bootstrap replications of the ICER.When an ICER is negative, then it is labeled as being either “dominant” (suggesting that the intervention is both more effective and less costly than CAU) or “inferior” (suggesting that the intervention is both less effective and more costly than CAU).